Don't bet on it. The Jews will never let it become policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Don't bet on it. The Jews will never let it become policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
And as alber always tells us, the Jews run your country.
Yours too, I bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawnie
I think ours might be "the toffs" or "the trade unions", depending on what side of the divide you are on.
On this side of the pond, you're all Jew monkeys. And you deserve it too. Fuckers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawnie
Where is Alber? I miss him in a weird way.
Probably sharing a room with kat in a loony bin. Probably not his turn to go online.
Yeah, I do too. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The Royal Dutch Medical Association states its view that male circumcision on minors is not justifiable without a medical reason (supported by a lot of medical-scientific foundations and a vast majority of doctors):
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/web/file?uu...ontentid=77976
(it's in english)
Interesting, but ultimately a weak document. It doesn't specifically discuss the potential "preventative" or hygienic benefits or discuss the specific "male functioning" aspect. It's a shallow document saying, "this makes some of us uncomfortable" but not saying much substantive.
:rolleyes:
Hey, sorry for having a high standard for "official" verdicts besides "this is different than what we do, we don't like it".
:rolleyes: *sigh*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
You did not read the text, did ya?Quote:
- There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds. Insofar as there are medical benefits, such as a possibly reduced risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the intervention, or can opt for any available alternatives.
- contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications. The most common complications are bleeding, infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the
urethra) and panic attacks. Partial or complete penis amputations as a result of complications following circumcisions have also been reported, as have psychological problems as a result of the circumcision.
- Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present, or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the interest of the child, as in the case of vaccinations.
- Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.
First of all, it's not different than what they do, they had been doing it in the past without worrying. And if you bothered to read the document, you would have read about the hygiene (which they disagree with), and medical (which they aren't sure about, but any benefit is not for kids but for grownups so they want people to choose it for themselves) sides are mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I actually read it in full, I was curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
That's known as a list of bullet points for an opinion. Not a or even a meta-study.
Yes, they disagree. They make that clear and use a lot of words to say the same things. They don't point to a ton of research, and more importantly they don't address specific issues about potential benefits of circumcision with contradicting research. In other words, it's not a real discussion of details, it's just an opinion. And some of the opinions being stated as facts just don't pass the logic test. Circumcision causes panic attacks? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
I didn't read the document, but do you have some definitive medical studies with "proof" of the so-called preventative benefits of male circumcision? I'm pretty sure the whole thing surrounding cancer prevention has been debunked, and the benefits against HIV angle is still under study (in African areas with deeply entrenched sexual myths and cultural issues to boot).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Hygiene, obviously, means teaching little boys to pull back the foreskin and wash with soap and water. Infant diaper-wearing UTIs is just as simple---don't let the baby sit in a super-absorbent diaper for hours on end, circumsized or not.
*and what's the "male functioning" aspect? :confused:
Male functioning = sex. :o
I've linked to various studies in this thread, it's not like I'm hatching some kind of weird conspiracy theory. It's a widely examined and debated issue. But that document doesn't get into the debate, just lists some bullet points.
That's because it isn't a study, but the stance of an association of dutch doctors, recommending how doctors should treat their patients. Also, I'm fairly sure they did read plenty of research about this before formulating their stance, but this is not a study paper itself, so they didn't include it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
They point to incidents reported by doctors themselves to the organisation. I assume they mean panic attacks during/shorty after the operation, not years later, no.Quote:
Yes, they disagree. They make that clear and use a lot of words to say the same things. They don't point to a ton of research, and more importantly they don't address specific issues about potential benefits of circumcision with contradicting research. In other words, it's not a real discussion of details, it's just an opinion. And some of the opinions being stated as facts just don't pass the logic test. Circumcision causes panic attacks? :rolleyes:
And they take the stance that the right of bodily integrity goes above cultural or religious reasons, and that the other possible benefits are still valid if you have the operation later, when you can actually decide for yourself. They're not saying there aren't any benefits, just that you shouldn't force surgery, with all its risks, on kids. 'We don't cut in kids unless there is a medical reason to'.
You mean the Pleasure Principle of the foreskin? That's subjective, and rather difficult to convince a cut male he's missing out on something he never experienced in the first place. Much easier (and frankly, rational) to argue that removing sensitive genital tissue will remove an aspect of pleasure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I thought Flixy made a good point; any (debatable) health positives can be chosen by an adult of consenting age.
In that case, folks should sue their parents for taking their tonsils out, braces, taking HGH supplements and any of the other stuff we do with kids.
Parents don't do those thing in their childs' infancy. That's like saying everyone should have a prophylactic appendectomy, tonsillectomy, and inner ear tubes in their first week of life. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
No, the overwhelming science has shown, and the medical community around the world has agreed---there is no medical reason to circumsize an infant male.
That leaves only religious or cultural reasons. But that's a tough row to hoe, since that is also how people justify cutting little girls' genitals.
:donkey:
Except they haven't all agreed. Putting the "infant male" caveat doesn't really change the debate. But we've had this discussion before, foreskin militants vs. foreskin agnostics.
Medically, physicians around the globe agree. The consensus has the majority and the science.
That means Jews (plus others) want to keep circumsizing minor males. By default, that suggests it's okay for Muslims (plus others) to keep circumsizing minor females. Both are either "religious or cultural" reasons, not medical. At some point we need to recognize the double standards, between religions/cultures/genders.
That's why we keep debating. :p
You do know that Muslims circumcise males, right? And that female circumcision isn't an Islamic thing as much as it's a cultural phenomenon of certain areas that makes women actually unable to orgasm? Men and women have different anatomy, which begets different debates. We've been over this one and just disagree. Foreskin militants vs. foreskin agnostics.
I did say (and others). :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
It doesn't matter so much that male and female genitals are "different" from one another. I see it more as the evolution of medical ethics, and questioning "conventional wisdom". You can say it's about the foreskin all you like, but I think it's more about treating infants and minors with some respect and dignity that only adults can offer, as protectors.
Perceptions and practices can change along side with science. It's the ingrained attitudes that are harder to change.
I'm still sort of waiting for the Judaic justification, when I've given links showing many Jews are deciding against the bris.
Seriously, you've never read the bible? Lots of Jews don't do everything in the bible. I don't do everything in the bibiel. But there's tons of circumcision in the bible, which means it's a template for many Jews.
That doesn't really answer my question. The bibiel ( :D ) says lots of things that's not necessarily a template. I'm curious why many Jews draw the line at male circumcision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
My guess is (and this could be wrong) that it's really hard for cut men to admit that cutting baby boys may not be the best idea.
I've had to admit, quite painfully and regretfully, that letting my ex decide to cut our sons for cultural reasons was a bad choice. It goes against several generations of gentile cutting. All the relatives knew, it was expected behavior.
It'd just be refreshing to hear a Jew admit that cutting isn't all it's cut out to be. Pun intended.
Because some of the early of the revered folk that religious people honor in the bible were circumcised. Plus that whole part where God tells Abraham to do it or something: http://bible.cc/genesis/17-13.htm
Your guess is wrong; foreskin militants obsess over this more than "cut men" do.
To do it...or something? :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
There's also the notion that making the penis head take a heart shape, via cutting, was part of that whole God seed creationism thing. Puts a new spin on "hand to heart, heart to God" and masturbation.
Cut men don't obsess about this until uncut men tell them they're crazy. Then it does sound really crazy to amputate a part of your baby's penis, because some passage in the Old Testament refers to others having done it. Or that your folks did it, and previous generations did it, as a rite of passage, so you must do it to your baby, too.
It's circular reasoning at its worst.